On topic photos...
Jim wrote:
Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:35:35 -0500, Boater
wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
GPUAR, Reggie. And why not post a photo that shows nature as
she is, Reggie? Certainly an asshole like you can't improve
upon it.
Harry,
I don't believe in the philosophy that a photo should capture
exactly what you saw. I follow the philosophy that a photograph
should capture what you felt.
Perhaps if you were sober...
Your photoshopping stands out more than your photos. Which is why
I think they suck. Some of the compositions would be interesting
if the lighting were realistic.
I have never been delusional that my photography or my post
processing would put me in the category of the Masters of
Photography. I do hope I learn something everyday and continue
to improve, which is why I enjoy critiques. I take a lot of photos
that I just delete, I take some that I really like, and sometimes
others like too. I figure if I take 12 great photos a year, that
is a good crop.
Now if all I did was go out and take a snapshot, I would sell my
camera.
Most of your photography seems to take place in photoshop.
Seriously, I think your photos would be better if you "processed"
them a lot less. They *look* processed.
Maybe you could get your wife to critique some of Reggie's photos.
Maybe you could get your wife to go on a diet.
Maybe you could eat **** and die. Incredible
Pot, kettle, black to both of you turds.
|